Here's the exact reason why LH received the penalty - B&W
Discussion
I think the main Spa thread is a bit redundant and this very important bit of info will get lost
(let's not turn this into a Ferrari vs Mclaren s
gging match - we can do that after the hearing 
)
Here's the rules that the stewards cited that LH breached (marked with a bullet)
Breach of Article 30.3(a) of the 2008 FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
2008 FORMULA ONE SPORTING REGULATIONS
30) GENERAL SAFETY
International Sporting Code
CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
(it's the G paragraph that is being applied - I've left A & F in purely as i found it fairly interesting)
2. Overtaking
a) During a race, a car alone on the track may use the full width of
the said track. However, as soon as it is caught up on a straight
by a car which is either temporarily or constantly faster, the driver
shall give the other vehicle the right of way by pulling over to one
side in order to allow for passing on the other side.
(left this in but doesn't apply at all to this incident but doesn't that mean that you can't defend)
f) The repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack
of control over the car (such as leaving the track) may entail the
exclusion of the drivers concerned. (er Massa at Silverstone )
There is no mention of advantages gained or how you should let one car pass etc
These rules do not apply to the offence.
Perhaps there is another rule somewhere (that I can't find) that applies to letting a car re pass you?
(let's not turn this into a Ferrari vs Mclaren s
gging match - we can do that after the hearing )Here's the rules that the stewards cited that LH breached (marked with a bullet)
Breach of Article 30.3(a) of the 2008 FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
2008 FORMULA ONE SPORTING REGULATIONS
30) GENERAL SAFETY
- 30.3 a) During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits.
International Sporting Code
CHAPTER IV - CODE OF DRIVING CONDUCT ON CIRCUITS
(it's the G paragraph that is being applied - I've left A & F in purely as i found it fairly interesting)
2. Overtaking
a) During a race, a car alone on the track may use the full width of
the said track. However, as soon as it is caught up on a straight
by a car which is either temporarily or constantly faster, the driver
shall give the other vehicle the right of way by pulling over to one
side in order to allow for passing on the other side.
(left this in but doesn't apply at all to this incident but doesn't that mean that you can't defend)
f) The repetition of serious mistakes or the appearance of a lack
of control over the car (such as leaving the track) may entail the
exclusion of the drivers concerned. (er Massa at Silverstone
)- g) The race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race.
There is no mention of advantages gained or how you should let one car pass etc
These rules do not apply to the offence.
Perhaps there is another rule somewhere (that I can't find) that applies to letting a car re pass you?
So technically, Lewis has been pulled up for just "leaving the track"? Just like Raikonnen did around the outside of Pouhon a lap later? Just like most drivers do at least once every single race of the year?
Is there a date for the hearing yet? I can't find one online, but I'm presuming it must be done and dusted before the Italian GP next weekend.
Is there a date for the hearing yet? I can't find one online, but I'm presuming it must be done and dusted before the Italian GP next weekend.
IIRC LH had a choice
Due to the position of KR's car, which " accidentally ran wide" he could
a. Hit the side of KR's car and take them both out of the race and incur the wrath of the stewards for doing so.
OR
b. run off the track and abide by the rules by giving the place back to KR immediately. Which it seems still incurs the wrath of the Stewards.
By comparison KR
ran VERY wide on the RHer to give him momentum on the following straight
Weaved violently in order to block LH.
Ran LH off the track at the bus stop despite LH being at least along side him (if not actually very slightly ahead)
Yet a red car incurs no wrath!!
Also a few races back KR was allowed to continue with the exhaust of his car clearly flapping around to the point where it actually flew off on a bend.
This was in breach of the regulations yet KR was not black flagged?
WHY?
Due to the position of KR's car, which " accidentally ran wide" he could
a. Hit the side of KR's car and take them both out of the race and incur the wrath of the stewards for doing so.
OR
b. run off the track and abide by the rules by giving the place back to KR immediately. Which it seems still incurs the wrath of the Stewards.
By comparison KR
ran VERY wide on the RHer to give him momentum on the following straight
Weaved violently in order to block LH.
Ran LH off the track at the bus stop despite LH being at least along side him (if not actually very slightly ahead)
Yet a red car incurs no wrath!!
Also a few races back KR was allowed to continue with the exhaust of his car clearly flapping around to the point where it actually flew off on a bend.
This was in breach of the regulations yet KR was not black flagged?
WHY?
Yes - Lewis was penalised for leaving the track. Not for gaining an advantage, not for not allowing Kimi to regain X amount of advantage.
Re watching the start of the race http://www.itv-f1.com/VideoHighlights.aspx
Kimi went wide (deliberately wide) at La source as did Alonso (who gained massively from it - he was 7th or 8th and he came out 4th)
Kimi didn't gain a position but did gain momentum and time on Massa
Former Ferrari driver and triple world champion Niki Lauda hit out at the stewards' decision on Sunday to strip Lewis Hamilton of his Belgian Grand Prix victory.
The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
woof said:
Former Ferrari driver and triple world champion Niki Lauda hit out at the stewards' decision on Sunday to strip Lewis Hamilton of his Belgian Grand Prix victory.
The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
In fairness, Lauda also drove (and won a WDC) for McLaren.The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
Nevertheless, he's right.
flemke said:
woof said:
Former Ferrari driver and triple world champion Niki Lauda hit out at the stewards' decision on Sunday to strip Lewis Hamilton of his Belgian Grand Prix victory.
The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
In fairness, Lauda also drove (and won a WDC) for McLaren.The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
Nevertheless, he's right.
John D. said:
flemke said:
woof said:
Former Ferrari driver and triple world champion Niki Lauda hit out at the stewards' decision on Sunday to strip Lewis Hamilton of his Belgian Grand Prix victory.
The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
In fairness, Lauda also drove (and won a WDC) for McLaren.The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
Nevertheless, he's right.
flemke said:
woof said:
Former Ferrari driver and triple world champion Niki Lauda hit out at the stewards' decision on Sunday to strip Lewis Hamilton of his Belgian Grand Prix victory.
The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
In fairness, Lauda also drove (and won a WDC) for McLaren.The forceful reaction of the British press was expected, with the Daily Mail correspondent Jonathan McEvoy labelling the 23-year-old McLaren driver the 'victim of a conspiracy against McLaren,' with the FIA heading a 'polluted sport.'
But Lauda, the former champion, spoke on behalf of much of the wider international paddock population.
"This is the worst judgment in the history of F1," he slammed. "The most perverted judgment I have ever seen. "It's absolutely unacceptable when three functionaries (the stewards) influence the championship like this," Lauda added.
Nevertheless, he's right.
mikee boy said:
Is there an official statement from the FIA/Stewards as to why LH actually got his penalty? Unfair advantage? Leaving the track?
I've seen about 10 different speculations so far but I can't find the official answer.
IINM it was because he "gained an advantage by cutting the chicane"I've seen about 10 different speculations so far but I can't find the official answer.
That'd be the advantage that let Kimi back into the lead over the line
No mention of Kimi's advantage gained by overtaking the Williams (that Lewis nearly hit avoiding) on waved yellows that put him back into the lead. Until he binned it...
mikee boy said:
Is there an official statement from the FIA/Stewards as to why LH actually got his penalty? Unfair advantage? Leaving the track?
I've seen about 10 different speculations so far but I can't find the official answer.
The official statement isI've seen about 10 different speculations so far but I can't find the official answer.
Breach of Article 30.3(a) of the 2008 FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
I've not found an actual copy of the steward report - but here's a image of it !
thought it best not to steal the image from the formula1.com site
I can make it out a bit better
Facts: Cut the chicane and gained an advantage
Offence: Breach of Article 30.3(a) of the 2008 FIA Formula 1 sporting regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
Edited by woof on Monday 8th September 11:47
odyssey2200 said:
Also a few races back KR was allowed to continue with the exhaust of his car clearly flapping around to the point where it actually flew off on a bend.
He even had a pit stop during the French Grand Prix at the time his exhaust was loose, yet the team let him resume the race without removing the loose pipe.http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/68581
"Domenicali said Ferrari made a conscious decision to leave the errant component flapping on the side of Raikkonen's car as they feared they would lose more time removing it during his pitstop."
Surely that makes the team guilty of putting other drivers (and spectators) at risk of injury!
mikee boy said:
Cheers woof
I guess the decision will have to be reversed once it is decided that although he gained an advantage, he did what was right and handed the advantage back.
You're assuming that this is going to get to appeal.I guess the decision will have to be reversed once it is decided that although he gained an advantage, he did what was right and handed the advantage back.
My money, sadly, is on the FIA finding a technical reason why any appeal would be inadmissable because of the particular regulation which was applied.
FourWheelDrift said:
Muzzer said:
No mention of Kimi's advantage gained by overtaking the Williams (that Lewis nearly hit avoiding) on waved yellows that put him back into the lead. Until he binned it...
Timo Glock got a 25s penalty for overtaking under waved yellows during the race.Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff